Re: [skydiverek] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida?
[In reply to]

Can't Post

skydiverek wrote:

ryoder wrote:

riggerrob wrote:

Was the pilot attempting to land on runway 32(magnetic heading 320 degrees) ... facing northwest?

Yes. See attached image. The green map pin labeled "A" is the house in the background of the photos.

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

From what I understand, it depends on where the buckets were placed on this particular day. If you go to Google maps, it looks like they are placed in line about half way between the shed and palm tree the day the images were taken.

There is no debate here, if the pilot didn't have a medical he was not legally fit to be in that aircraft to begin with. PIC at fault

And also message #30:

Skydiverek wrote:

Maybe because he's 87 years old

The first part of your statement is true, however, that does not mean he is automatically at fault. Just because some paperwork isn't in order, or because he's old, doesn't mean that whatever happens is automatically his fault.

If a driver runs a red light and hits an 87-year-old pedestrian who is an illegal immigrant, does that make the accident the fault of the illegal immigrant because he's old and he shouldn't have been in the country to start with? Of course not.

I'm not trying to absolve this pilot of responsibility. But if he's guilty, it's not because he's 87 years old, nor because he didn't have a medical. It would be because he failed to see and avoid. And that can be done by anyone, regardless of age or medical status.

Let's not be so quick to judge based solely upon age or paperwork. Stick to objective analysis.

Re: [chuckakers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida?
[In reply to]

Can't Post

chuckakers wrote:

Boogers wrote:

skydiverek wrote:

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

A 180 degree hook turn, to answer your question.

Right. And a very low hook turn at that. And we all know how bad a practice that is. This landing area doesn't seem to offer much other choice EXCEPT to cross the runway to get to the landing area, with winds from either the east or west.

There is no debate here, if the pilot didn't have a medical he was not legally fit to be in that aircraft to begin with. PIC at fault

And also message #30:

Skydiverek wrote:

Maybe because he's 87 years old

The first part of your statement is true, however, that does not mean he is automatically at fault. Just because some paperwork isn't in order, or because he's old, doesn't mean that whatever happens is automatically his fault.

If a driver runs a red light and hits an 87-year-old pedestrian who is an illegal immigrant, does that make the accident the fault of the illegal immigrant because he's old and he shouldn't have been in the country to start with? Of course not.

I'm not trying to absolve this pilot of responsibility. But if he's guilty, it's not because he's 87 years old, nor because he didn't have a medical. It would be because he failed to see and avoid. And that can be done by anyone, regardless of age or medical status.

Let's not be so quick to judge based solely upon age or paperwork. Stick to objective analysis.

Having a 3rd Class medical is not exactly onerous or expensive IF you really are fit to fly. Nor is it just "paperwork".

The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

Re: [Boogers] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida?
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Boogers wrote:

chuckakers wrote:

Boogers wrote:

skydiverek wrote:

Still, the skydiver crossed the runway below 1000 feet, correct?

How would YOU land in that small area by the pea gravel pit with the winds from the east without crossing the runway below 1,000 feet?

A 180 degree hook turn, to answer your question.

Right. And a very low hook turn at that. And we all know how bad a practice that is. This landing area doesn't seem to offer much other choice EXCEPT to cross the runway to get to the landing area, with winds from either the east or west.

Not a low hook. I fly a Stiletto 135 loaded 1.5:1 and comfortably make a 180 front riser turn at 350 feet.

Getting back to the topic (not crossing runways when geezer pilots are landing), it would also be possible at the airport in question to to fly a base leg parallel to and on the landing area side of the runway and then make a gentle 90 degree toggle turn to final at 100 feet or even a bit less to keep from over-shooting the target.

I'm sure some will take exception to the suggestion of a turn at 100 feet or lower, but properly done it is safe and it's an effective way to deal with tight landing areas.

**** Noobs, don't try that technique without first consulting an instructor or canopy coach. *****

The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

Yes, but that missing paperwork wouldn't be the cause of the accident. For example, it might be that his eyesight is poor and he doesn't see well, and that's why he didn't take the medical. But the poor eyesight would be the contributing cause to the accident, not the lack of some card in his wallet.

Re: [FlyingRon] I understand there was a 172 that hit a skydiver in Florida?
[In reply to]

Can't Post

FlyingRon wrote:

Someone managed to piece together the individual stills and identify where on the field this actually happened. The early sketch I got from someone else was apparently wrong. The incident took place ahead of where the field would normally have had displaced the threshold with buckets (it's not clear if the buckets were in place in this incident, you can't see them in the accident pictures).

This would appear to be the normal jumper approach to the area where it crosses the runway ahead of the threshold. Still not ideal though it doesn't change what I suspect the ultimate blame will be "Mutual failure to see and avoid."

The DZO posted on Facebook that the collision took place 300 feet short of the runway. I can't tell from the photos how accurate that is, but the DZO there is a pretty straight shooter in my experience.

Razormpc, Just to note FAR 105.23(b) the section dealing with non-tower airports is independent of section (c) which is the 2000' clause.

Section (c) applies to the introductory statement of the FAR and therefore to ALL jumps regardless of what type of airport they are jumping over (towered vs. non). Just don't want people confusing the issue.

The real question is what is the airport's actual agreement with the skydiving group? Per the FAR, subsection (b) requires that prior approval must be obtained from management to allow operations onto the field. Presumably they've set some sort of guidelines that would tell us what the operations should be, which would tell us who was at "fault" a little better. Remember, the FAA will determine fault based on their rules and a civil lawsuit between parties will likely determine liability in a much different manner.

The only reason I can think of for a pilot flying without having a current medical is that he knows he can't qualify and is, in fact, not fit to fly.

Yes, but that missing paperwork wouldn't be the cause of the accident. For example, it might be that his eyesight is poor and he doesn't see well, and that's why he didn't take the medical. But the poor eyesight would be the contributing cause to the accident, not the lack of some card in his wallet.

Disagree.

Either he's unfit to fly medically, or unfit to fly because he's a scofflaw.

At one point in this thread I also latched onto the 2000'-above-the-pattern statement in the FARs, wondering what the implication is for runways -- whether one technically has to fly 2000' above a runway because a runway could be part of a pattern, especially given that aircraft may do touch and goes or low passes.

Given the wording in AC105, quoted by Stratostar earlier, it appears that the FAA interprets its FARs as NOT requiring a high crossing of a runway:

Quote:

Areas such as RWS [runways], taxiways, clearways, and obstacle-free zones are not prohibited areas but should not be designated as a primary landing area and should be vacated as soon as practical. Flying a parachute over RWS at low altitudes should be avoided where possible.

While you can always argue about legal FAR requirements vs. non-regulatory guidance material, based on the FAA's statements, it is reasonable to believe that a low crossing of a runway with a parachute is legal although generally undesired.

The jumper in this case did appear to create a hazard by a low crossing of the runway, despite being in a tight squeeze as far as landable areas go, and despite the pilot's license issues.

(I think there are plenty of old guys out there who no longer have one or more of a license or medical or biennial flight review. It often seems to happen that they don't get noticed until there's an incident and somebody starts checking paperwork...)

I haven't read all the post on this incident...but with some awesome photo evidence it will be nice to see a follow up post on this incident once the FAA makes a ruling.

I think there is blame to be made against the pilot as well as the jumper. Published information was given and available for a PIC to properly conduct their flight in a safe manner and they may be held to account for the incident.

Also the jumper should have been more aware of the activities of air traffic in and around the landing area as it appears this is a active airport for more than just skydiving.

In the end, a miracle or what ever you choose to call it HAPPENED ON THIS DAY, AS NO ONE WAS KILLED.

Cheers to the photographer...for capturing an event that should be discussed in Parachutes magazine and future SAFETY DAYs at your local DZ.

There is obviously a see and avoid problem here. Most likely the NTSB (if there were such an investigation) will blame both parties as BOTH have such responsibility (unlike nautical rules of the road there is no "privileged vessel" in aviation). However, casting aspersions on FORMER VETERANS just because they've surveyed to old age is absolutely reprehensible.

While I agree that age alone is not necessarily a disqualifying factor, I'd argue that when a vehicle operator who is in an accident is 87 years old, due diligence requires that the age factor always at least be examined, at a threshold level, to either rule it in or rule it out - regardless of the currency of his last medical. His advanced age simply demands that level of initial scrutiny.

THAT rule is for flying over a non-participating airport (think cross country jumps), not one that has an established parachute landing area or even just the permission of the airport manager. Otherwise, how could you EVER land at your home DZ's airport? I've jumped over and landed on many, many airports, quite a few with no established DZ, just the manager's permission.

I dont trust people that old in Buicks, no way Id put them behind the yoke of an aircraft.

And I don't trust 19 year olds in Camaros.

However, I don't see age as an issue for flying as long as the individual can pass the flight review and medical.

Apparently this individual did not have a current medical. I wonder when his last flight review took place.

No Medical, will not speak well for this pilot...I wonder what the Insurance company will have to say about this? Is the aircraft covered and any injuries received by the jumper covered under the policy. Just wondering how the insurance company policy is worded for someone operating an aircraft without a medical.

Several months ago I posted the "FAA Has a Heart"...in this case they just may lose their heart.

(c) A parachutist may drift over that airport with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and property on the ground

There is a bottom line here. For me it's that the jumper crossed low over the runway where aircraft could reasonably be expected to be, without adequately checking for traffic that should be expected to there. If I was the jumper, I would consider myself to be largely to blame. There are other contributing factors, but mostly it would be my fault.